Arguments

 In this section, I hope to discuss about the nature of arguments. Arguments can be saddening, enragening, and also guilt-ridden. As I had an argument today, one with my dad, I hope to write down my related thoughts about this topic.

When arguing, I become focused less on what I believe, and more on merely proving the other person wrong. If I fail to prove the other person wrong, and make an utter fool out of them, I have not achieved my purpose, and am open to being attacked, and I am made more vulnerable. Losing the argument would not be the outcome I desire, as that would have negative consequences on my self-confidence, which have even been shown on the neurological level. Furthermore, being embarassed and shamed by losing an argument is an experience I've had before, and it's not a pleasant one.

The consequences of an argument are also interpersonal, especially when one is had with a close connection, friend, or family member. Arguments can disrupt the connection between people, and make discourse unpleasant. Yet, for me, it has not been the subject of the argument or a drastic consequence of the argument that makes it difficult to reconvene with the same person, but merely the remembrance of an argument previously being had.

As shown in Spiderman 3, Harry, upon bumping his head, entirely forgets the reason he disagrees with Peter, and the two are able to resume their friendly relationship peacable.

So, given my own experience with arguments, having dominated some and lost others, I know that they lead to what feels like a baser or more primal instinctive reaction, almost one as if the combating entities were engaged in physical tumult, rather than mere verbal jabs. This connects to our emotional vestment into arguments, as well as the frequency of anger, crying, guilt, or a mix of emotions that accompanies them. There also seems to be a connection between our domination of or submission to arguments, and our relative rank. For example, an elementary school, a setting with a social group that seems in some sense to resemble that of gorillas, lobsters, and such animals who engage in conflict with one another and desire to ascend the social ladder to the top, contains characters like the school bully, who has risen to the top on account of his physical strength or verbal agility, and also contains scared, inferior characters like the bullied, who have neither the ability to defeat very many others in tussles or arguments, nor much allure for potential mates (or, rather, whatever the analog of a mate is in elementary school).

One last topic I wish to explore in this section is the attitude that ought to be born towards arguments, our goals, the structured nature of fighting, and what we should beware when conducting them. I feel that arguments are necessary as a sign of domination, which is necessary in society, of one person over the other, if progress is to be made, and advances to be driven forth. However, proper care should be taken to keep its effects in moderation. For example, excessive loss of arguments may be damaging to one's brain and self-esteem (and it seems that there is a neurological basis for this as well, with the reduction of serotonin following the loss of an argument). Secondly, the nature and significance of the argument should be deliberated, so as to keep in check what the potential risks and rewards are of engaging in such an argument (if, for example, the topic at hand is a structured debate, winning the argument would serve each party's best interest). However, just as lobsters back down upon anticipating that they would likely be defeated, I feel that certain scenarios in human life are not best given to argument, such as picking up a fight with one's landlord, debating with a teacher (especially if they are the type to make rash consequential decisions, such as making an indelible dent upon your clean af academic record), or fighting with one's parents as I did (especially if they are on the verge of disowning you; ok, that was a joke).